Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shivraj Gheghat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 May, 2023
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 8396 of 2018
(SHIVRAJ GHEGHAT AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 12-05-2023
Mr. Ashish Kumar Tiwari - Advocate for the appellant no.2.
Mr. A.N. Gupta - Government Advocate for the respondent / State.
Heard on I.A. No. 21324 of 2022, an application under Section 389(1)
of the Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant no.2
Raju Mena arising out of judgment dated 15.10.2018 delivered in ST
No.1100528/2017 by XVIth Additional Sessions Judge Bhopal (M.P.).
T h e appellant no.2 has been convicted under Section 302/34 of the
Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of
Rs.1,000/- and under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellant no.2 submits that there is no eye-
witness account in the instant case. The appellant and other co-accused persons
were held guilty on the basis of circumstantial evidence. One such important
circumstance, as per the Court below, is recovery of blood stained shirt,
slippers and knife. However, there is no mention about date or Exhibit of the
FSL Report on the strength of which, finding is arrived at in para-41 of the
impugned judgment.
Mr. Tiwari further submits that he has personally perused the entire
original record but could not lay his hands on any such FSL report. In absence
of report, no question could be put to appellant under Section 313 of the
CrPC. Thus, even otherwise, the said report cannot be used against the
appellant. This Court was kind enough in suspending the remaining jail
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 5/13/2023
3:34:32 PM
sentence of the appellant no.1 way back on 26.06.2019. The additional ground
in the said case of appellant no.1 was that he was a blind person, otherwise, the
role attributed on this appellant is similar. Appellant is in custody since
15.10.2018. Final hearing of this appeal is not possible in near future. Thus, the
remaining jail sentence of the appellant may be suspended.
Learned G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer.
Considering the aforesaid factual backdrop and without expressing any
conclusive opinion on the merits of the case, we deem it proper to suspend the
remaining jail sentence of appellant no.2. Accordingly, I.A No. 21324 of 2022
is allowed.
Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the
remaining jail sentence of the appellant no.2 Raju Mena is hereby suspended
and it is directed that on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/-
(Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) along with one solvent surety in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, appellant No.1 Manju be released
on bail with a further direction to remain present before the Trial Court,
Bhopal on 12th July, 2023 and on such other dates as may be fixed by the
trial Court in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
julie
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JULIE SINGH
Signing time: 5/13/2023
3:34:32 PM
